More Piper Comanche questions!

FloridaPilot said:
Why did you sell the car?
Click to expand...

He had to get the money for the Conti top overhaul from somewhere, duh! I keed I keed. IO-470 is probably the only Conti engine I could pinch my nose and be willing to put up with.
 
FloridaPilot said:
Beautiful bird you have there! Let me know when you are in the area again. I will buy some fuel for you. I frequent KSPG as well and I run at Vinoy park all the time in Saint Petersburg!
Click to expand...
FloridaPilot said:
Beautiful bird you have there! Let me know when you are in the area again. I will buy some fuel for you. I frequent KSPG as well and I run at Vinoy park all the time in Saint Petersburg!
Click to expand...

I’m busy for the next few weeks, but I’ve been to SPG for lunch a few times and we could meet there or somewhere else. I don’t need much of an excuse to go flying.
 
I looked at 48x and it’s doable also. I haven’t been to a grass strip in years, I don’t have a problem with that as long as it’s in good shape.
 
dmcummins said:
I looked at 48x and it’s doable also. I haven’t been to a grass strip in years, I don’t have a problem with that as long as it’s in good shape.
Click to expand...

48X is pretty nice. They keep it well maintained. Many V-Tails are there on the field.
 
One thing to consider between a Comanche 250/260 versus a twin Comanche. You are going from one 6 cylinder engine, to two 4 cylinder engines; only two more total cylinders to maintain. Unless you get a C/R Twin Comanche, the engines are fairly common IO-320s.

From my experience, the Comanches are no more maintenance intensive than any of their similar age counterparts. Yeah there are a couple of items that require inspection and upkeep, but find a 50-60 year old airframe that doesn't.
 
FloridaPilot said:
"Honey I want to sell my Airplane...I really do"

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...ANCHE+260B&listing_id=2328344&s-type=aircraft
Click to expand...

It does have 3,000 TT, which is very low for a Comanche of any vintage. However I would find that a negative instead. That means much of its life was spent not flying, and probably not being maintained. It would need to be gone through with a fine tooth comb, and I would expect to spend a lot of money addressing things. Not to mention, might need an engine, and the panel...well. I wouldn't even look at it for that price.
 
midwestpa24 said:
It does have 3,000 TT, which is very low for a Comanche of any vintage. However I would find that a negative instead. That means much of its life was spent not flying, and probably not being maintained. It would need to be gone through with a fine tooth comb, and I would expect to spend a lot of money addressing things. Not to mention, might need an engine, and the panel...well. I wouldn't even look at it for that price.
Click to expand...

You're right!

I took a glimpse at it and it didn't even seem like the owner wants to really sell it. I would think if you wanted to really sell you would want to take the best photos of it. Take the airplane out of the Hangar, take the maintenance rags off of it and wash it for "Pete's sake".
 
midwestpa24 said:
It does have 3,000 TT, which is very low for a Comanche of any vintage. However I would find that a negative instead. That means much of its life was spent not flying, and probably not being maintained. It would need to be gone through with a fine tooth comb, and I would expect to spend a lot of money addressing things. Not to mention, might need an engine, and the panel...well. I wouldn't even look at it for that price.
Click to expand...

Another one that will sit for sale for years, because the guy is just not serious about selling. Lots of airplanes on the market where the owners think this is 2003-2005 which was about the end of appreciation on these toys.
 
eman1200 said:
looks like that plane did quite a bit of sittin' around. nice interior though.
Click to expand...

I agree. Paint and interior really dressed it up, but it is still a very low time airframe for its age which can be a concern. The engine has only 750 hours in 38 years, so it has sat a while somewhere. You would need to budget for an engine, 38 years since OH is a very long time. The panel is quite dated. If you were going to do any serious travelling or instrument work you will want to upgrade. I'd plan on spending at least $50,000 in engine and avionics, probably more. If you could get the price under $50k, maybe even $40k, it might be worth a look. I doubt you will, the owner is probably fixated on the price of paint and interior, and the "low-time" engine.
 
eman1200 said:
looks like that plane did quite a bit of sittin' around. nice interior though.
Click to expand...

Agree. Lots of old radios. $15K spent at last annual should tell you something! What was the date of the last OH? How many hours each of the last 4 years?

I bet part of the $15K annual was for the interior.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I agree. Paint and interior really dressed it up, but it is still a very low time airframe for its age which can be a concern. The engine has only 750 hours in 38 years, so it has sat a while somewhere. You would need to budget for an engine, 38 years since OH is a very long time. The panel is quite dated. If you were going to do any serious travelling or instrument work you will want to upgrade. I'd plan on spending at least $50,000 in engine and avionics, probably more. If you could get the price under $50k, maybe even $40k, it might be worth a look. I doubt you will, the owner is probably fixated on the price of paint and interior, and the "low-time" engine.
Click to expand...

Once painted and interior done, and older than 4-5 years, figure worth 50% of install cost. Its used at that point, I don’t care how good it looks. Avionics, 50% as well after 3 years.
 
To keep with the thread, Q for the post-'66 owners , @Kristin and other experts could elaborate. Are the individual rear seats slide aft-fwd adjustable the same way you can in the C33 and beyond Debbies/Bos? Or are they fixed, like in the Arrow et al?

And on that topic, can the pre-66 bench seat be yanked and individual seats installed? The 250 market is sufficiently depressed compared to the Bs and Cs that they still offer a reasonable alternative to the Debbies. Sat in a C33A a couple months ago and was pleasantly surprised by the back seat, not nearly as impressed with the W/B of course. PA24 W/B is on point for my mission, but the bench seat model leg room and enclosed luggage is a no-go. But if we could improve that by removing the bench seat and installing the bucket seats....whole new ball game.
 
Yes , they are adjustable fore and aft on rails just like the front seats. They also have armrests cleverly built into the seats that articulate with the seatback. They are removable in seconds, just slide them off of the rails to the rear and then out.
 
lblandina said:
Yes , they are adjustable fore and aft on rails just like the front seats. They also have armrests cleverly built into the seats that articulate with the seatback. They are removable in seconds, just slide them off of the rails to the rear and then out.
Click to expand...
Nice. Thanks for the that feedback! Might be worth keep scouring for an affordable B then, especially if that retrofit cannot be done readily for the pre 66s. Its a big enough deal for my family that it could tilt the equation to debbies if i cant find the cabin layout I need, much as id like to remain on the Lyco camp.
 
I am aware of conversions to individual rear seats, not sure how involved it may be. More expertise is probably available on the Airworthy Comanche Forum. You'll have a much better load hauler with Comanche as opposed to Debonair!
 
Bumping this up. Subject is interesting to me and, based on the fact it's gone 8 pages without an argument breaking out, subject seems to be interesting to others.
 
1965 Love my 260.
With the tips, I have over 7 hours of flight time. Will do 165 kts at 75%. I seldom do that, stay around 65% for 158kts.

easy to land if u slow down as mentioned. Glides thru the air with a 37’ wing span.

the Debonair 235 hp is my second choice if I was to buy a different plane,

sits 4 adults easy.
 
As I begin to get older, I wonder how you older guys with the Comanche are able to step up onto the wing with no step. Do you use a step stool or egg crate?
 
Rcmutz said:
As I begin to get older, I wonder how you older guys with the Comanche are able to step up onto the wing with no step. Do you use a step stool or egg crate?
Click to expand...

I'm less concerned about it for me than my wife. Having said that, the flap tailing edge is pretty low, and there's a conveniently placed hand grab. Getting out is actually harder than getting in.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
I'm less concerned about it for me than my wife. Having said that, the flap tailing edge is pretty low, and there's a conveniently placed hand grab. Getting out is actually harder than getting in.
Click to expand...

I have the same concern wrt the wife. She has a “trick” knee that sometimes locks up on her.

As far as getting out, I heard the best thing to do is roll and put a knee on the seat, and then hoist yourself out.
 
Rcmutz said:
I have the same concern wrt the wife. She has a “trick” knee that sometimes locks up on her.

As far as getting out, I heard the best thing to do is roll and put a knee on the seat, and then hoist yourself out.
Click to expand...

Can't wait to see the bride try that ;). What usually works for her is to skootch her butt up onto the door sill and spin. Skirts are definitely not the uniform of the day.
 
Several years ago I took my then 82 year old mother on a cross-country flight in my Twin Comanche. This flight was literally across the country so there was many legs. My solution was a plastic, four-legged, one step, stool. I attached cord to the top by drilling a hole on each side and running a cord through and knotting. I set the stool and looped the cord through the assist handle on the side of the fuselage. Then I got in. Mom could easily get on the wing with the stool. Once on the wing, she grabbed the cord and hoisted up the stool and handed it to me for stowing. Getting out, I handed her the stool which she could lower down with the cord and then step down on it. Worked perfectly.
 
As an older pilot with older friends, I prefer the lower Comanche wing as far as disembarking. I’ve had quite a few passengers miss the step getting off of the higher Bonanza wing, especially after a long cross country where our joints get “stowed” up. They misjudged the step despite the warning. Like the previous pilot, I had a light stool for older passengers when I had a Twinkie.
 
I am 67, good shape and with no issues mounting my Comanche for a ride.:)​
 
Kristin is now helping my son evaluate Twin Comanches. My plane ownership journey has been from a couple of gliders, to a Mooney M20J to a Cessna 414. So zero Piper experience. I’m so nervous my kid will end up with a money pit, since I know so little. What’s the odds with this plane that he’ll get burned???
 
Lance F said:
Kristin is now helping my son evaluate Twin Comanches. My plane ownership journey has been from a couple of gliders, to a Mooney M20J to a Cessna 414. So zero Piper experience. I’m so nervous my kid will end up with a money pit, since I know so little. What’s the odds with this plane that he’ll get burned???
Click to expand...

Unlikely you'll get a candid answer in an echo chamber. You can PM me though ;)
 
Lance F said:
Kristin is now helping my son evaluate Twin Comanches. My plane ownership journey has been from a couple of gliders, to a Mooney M20J to a Cessna 414. So zero Piper experience. I’m so nervous my kid will end up with a money pit, since I know so little. What’s the odds with this plane that he’ll get burned???
Click to expand...

I am actually working with a few folks, though I can take a wild guess as to which might be your son. I just sent him my evaluation of the logs and what I would recommend for the physical inspection. Perhaps he will share with you, assuming I guessed right.
 
Kristin, I just read. your report. Very thorough. You obviously know these planes well. Looks scary to me, but maybe all 55 year old planes are like this. I'm just wondering if you feel there could be less risky TCs out there. I know I should keep my nose out of this, but it's my kid and grandkids that will be flying in whatever he might buy.
 
Lance F said:
Kristin, I just read. your report. Very thorough. You obviously know these planes well. Looks scary to me, but maybe all 55 year old planes are like this. I'm just wondering if you feel there could be less risky TCs out there. I know I should keep my nose out of this, but it's my kid and grandkids that will be flying in whatever he might buy.
Click to expand...

I must have guessed right then. I won't discuss the specifics here, but as you have the report, you have my email.

In general, there is always some risk with old airplane, but to a large extent they can be understood and mitigated if one gets a thorough pre-buy from someone who knows the aircraft and knows how to do a pre-purchase assessment. The logs tell a story about the airplane. I try to understand the story to assess what needs a closer physical inspection and what is just a crap shoot. IMO, one needs both the experience of flying and working on the planes, preferably the same planes, over a period of time so you see what breaks and how often. My experience in that is limited to Pipers, so I generally limit my pre-buy work to these.

The biggest risk in any airplane is the engines, particularly Lycomings that has been inactive for periods of time. Generally, I prefer engines that are either run out, or nearly so, or recent overhauls by a known repair station or the factory. These pose the least financial risk. The riskiest are low time engines with a mystery overhaul done by some mechanic and poorly documented. These planes are rarely priced low enough to compensate for the risk. The only way to check the cam and lifter bodies for corrosion is to pull a cylinder or two. Most sellers are not keen on that happening.

Otherwise, if one knows the aircraft, the airframe issues can be reasonably assessed during the physical inspection of the aircraft. Then the only issue becomes whether the plane can be had at a price that reflects what needs to be done immediately and a portion of what is likely to need to be done over the first 2-3 years of operation.
 
Wise words. We will see what happens. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top